Inordinate Fear of Hillaryism

8/30/07


Just a few weeks ago, Hillary Clinton wondered about the Right’s “obsession” with her. Those of us who have little fear of, and perhaps even less love for, Mrs. Clinton have been wondering about the Right’s fear, bordering on paranoia, of her for years.

Of what is everyone so afraid? Why did the American Spectator feel compelled to have a column called “Hillary Watch”? Why do people who would appear to have more important things to do devote their lives to full-time Hillary bashing (as the Wall Street Journal reported last week) out of fear that she might become president?

As one who really believes the things that self-proclaimed conservatives say they believe about limited government and personal and economic freedom, I have very little fear of Mrs. Clinton. Even if we assume she is some sort of wild-eyed Left Wing ideologue, we have to assume that the statist philosophy we normally associate with the Left (what I like to call “All things to all people with your money”) is so seductive, or that Mrs. Clinton is such a charismatic salesperson, that another Clinton presidency will result in a wholesale change of American political thinking. In reality, the bromides of the far left wing of the Democratic Party are the same dyspeptic codswallop they have always been (Has anyone noticed Dennis Kucinich’s poll numbers lately?) and Mrs. Clinton is no Huey Long. Such radical shifts, though certainly not without precedent (1932 and 1980 come immediately to mind, though neither represented as radical a shift as either their fans or critics would have us believe.), are very rare in American politics.

Equally important, there is very little evidence that Mrs. Clinton is a loony leftist. Sure, she may be more ideologically motivated than was her husband, but the same could be said for about 95% of breathing Americans. In reality, the most salient feature of Hillary Clinton is the most salient feature of Bill Clinton: a solipsistic obsession with acquiring and maintaining power. As is the case with Bill, what matters to Hillary Clinton is Hillary Clinton. To the extent that any political philosophy would interfere with her winning, and keeping, the presidency that philosophy will be thrown overboard.

Therefore, when Mrs. Clinton becomes president, we shouldn’t expect any addle-brained initiatives in either foreign or domestic policy. The capital gains tax will not be increased (Note that her husband reduced the capital gains tax after Mr. Reagan raised it.) because Hillary, and the Democrats, are smart enough to know the consequences that such an increase would have for the markets and the economy, and thus for their grip on power. Domestic spending will not skyrocket in an effort to implement a radical left wing agenda, at least not to the extent that it skyrocketed under George II in an effort to implement a radical right wing (but certainly not conservative or libertarian) agenda, because Mrs. Clinton knows just how much the American people like their money spent on quixotic attempts at remaking society. Foreign policy (sadly) will remain pretty much as it has been since the end of World War II. Taxes at the very high end of the income scale will probably be raised, but, just as when Bill Clinton raised such taxes, most people, and the economy, will barely notice. Nor will the nightmares of the religious Right be realized. The number of abortions, for example, will rise or fall with society’s attitude toward abortion without regard for what the occupant of the White House thinks. Note that abortions rose sharply during the administration of the most “pro-life” President ever, Ronald Reagan, and fell sharply during the administration of the most “pro-choice” President ever, Bill Clinton.

In short, because Mrs. Clinton is as focused on Hillary Clinton as Mr. Clinton was focused on Bill Clinton, and she is a rather talented and clever politician (though not in Bill’s league), we can expect that the second Clinton presidency will be pretty much like the first Clinton presidency. Especially after the second Bush presidency, is that such a bad thing?